> I'm not sure about that.� In many many ways his ideas are both wrong and > dangerous.� His focusing on classes and the inevitability of class > struggle, his inability to see the possibility of moderation and compromise > all are firm foundations for the evil done in his name. > At the time, there was very little moderation and compromise to see.
> My guess is that he will, properly, be taught as a major > philosopher/political philosopher/sociologist for years to come.� Properly > taught, he can also be a roll model for the disastrous effects of hubris > when intellectuals ply their trade. > How did Marx ply his trade? He was never in charge of anything. He wrote and argued; others tried to put his ideas into practice (badly and in inappropriate places). There was no hubris at play here; in fact, he denounced the communist party of Germany shortly before he died for misusing his thoughts (when told what their program was, he replied, "If this is what it means to be a 'Marxist,' then _I_ am not a Marxist!") You can't take the evil of the 20th century and blame a man who died in 1883 for what others would do later, even if it was in his name. Especially when he never called for it to be done. Tom Beck www.mercerjewishsingles.org "I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last." - Dr Jerry Pournelle _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
